Bear in mind that Sabine has not been sentenced yet; that will take place later this week, and while we’ve heard any number of guesses as to how it might go, ultimately it will be up to the court to decide.

Today we thought we’d delve into the whys and wherefores of Friday’s verdict: which charges stuck, which didn’t, and what it may mean. It’s important to remember that juries do not give reasons for their decisions; their job is to weigh the evidence and make a unanimous decision. Any guesses we may make as to their thoughts or motives are purely speculative.

However, the charges on which the jury came back with “not guilty” decisions do have some characteristics in common, and it might be useful to consider what those were, as it can give us insight into what will and will not stand up in court in any future cases.

Stalking charges

Counts 1–4, she said, allege that between 2015 and 2017, Sabine pursued a course of conduct which amounted to stalking four individuals who were named as alleged Satanic child abusers by Ella Draper in 2014. These people cannot be named due to reporting restrictions designed to protect the identities of children involved in this case.

As a result, the people involved have had to change their lives drastically. Not only were their families investigated by social services to determine whether they were sexually abusing their children, but they have suffered from ruined businesses, and have had to deal with unimaginable emotional and physical impacts.

Stalking is a crime which takes place over a period of time, and has a cumulative effect, Moore said.

Although Sabine’s defence counsel argued that these individuals were not targeted deliberately, and that Sabine was misguided and deluded but could not have foreseen that her actions could be interpreted as stalking, the jury found Sabine guilty on all four of these counts.

In Sabine’s trial, HHJ Sally Cahill QC made a point of noting that when a group of people is targeted, individuals within that group can legitimately claim to have been targeted.

“To target a readily identifiable group is to target the members of that group”, she said.

To determine guilt on the stalking charges required that the jury determine:

Whether Sabine had definitely engaged in a course of conduct amounting to harassment;

Whether this harassment amounted to stalking;

Whether the stalking caused serious alarm or distress;

Whether she knew or ought to have known that her behaviour would cause such alarm or distress;

Whether it was more likely than not that her behaviour was for the purpose of detecting or preventing a crime; and

Whether her behaviour was reasonable

Clearly, the jury was able to fulfill these criteria, and found the defendant guilty.

Breaches of restraining order

The “breach of restraining order” charges can be roughly broken down into four groups:

Direct posts to Sabine’s Whistleblower Kids blog;

Links which led to Sabine’s Google Drive, which contained files such as one labelled “Cult Details”, naming the parents and children who were claimed to be part of the Satanic baby-eating cult in Hampstead;

Two “live” breaches—one in person at the Church of England Synod in February 2018, and one by phone shortly thereafter;

Links to Twitter and/or Facebook, which led to various sites such as Change.org or WordPress blogs, which in turn led back to the Whistleblower Kids blog.

The jury seemed far less inclined to vote “guilty” on alleged breaches in the last category, possibly because an element of doubt was raised about the “link to a link to a link” issue.

To determine guilt, each juror must be as sure as they can be that the defendant committed the crime, and that they intended to do so. In the case of the “link to a link to a link” charges, we can see how this would be very difficult to decide.

While the Crown argued that this was just a particularly wily way to re-share old material, the jury’s problem would have been to determine whether Sabine was aware of what she was doing. Did she know that in tweeting a link to one blog, she was inadvertently sending some viewers to another, and then another, which contained material which her restraining order prohibited her from re-sharing?

Whether one believes that it was an intentional breach or not, an element of doubt might have been raised, and that would have been quite properly sufficient to generate a verdict of “not guilty” on that charge.

Others of a similar ilk were also rejected by the jury.

The charges which stood, meanwhile, were those were it was relatively easy to demonstrate intent. As Sabine’s defence pointed out, the entire Whistleblower Kids blog was one gigantic breach of the restraining order…except that there was never any order in place to remove it from the internet. Given Sabine’s determination to keep the Hampstead hoax going, we would not have expected her to remove that blog without a significant push from the courts.

When Sabine drew attention to the blog in a more obvious way—by posting seemingly irrelevant poetry on it, for example—it was clear that she was attempting to attract public attention to the site and its nasty contents. She was, as she admitted, on a campaign; and she stated during the trial that she would believe in this hoax as long as she draws breath.

This case was a complex one, and from time to time we wondered what the jury must be making of it all. It seems that they really did get the picture.

Thanks for the explanations given in this post. This is helpful as I’ve been wondering about it. Overall, the Jury did an excellent job, IMO.
It would have been difficult for them to come to a unanimous decision on whether one could remember which links were on the sidebar of one’s various blogs. So I understand the Not Guilty verdicts in that respect.

“Any guesses we may make as to their thoughts or motives are purely speculative.”

I’m torn between ’12 Angry Men’… and 12 emotionally drained individuals who’d had to sit through several days of technical legalese and Sabine talking bollocks in her best Frau Farbissna voice and had buses to catch.

Eddieisok is an odd case. If I recall correctly when he was called up in front of the judge he responded “I only wanted to film the trollls”.
Firstly how on earth he could figure out who these imaginary trolls are is a mystery but does it not occur to these folk that filming everyone going into a court case is highly risky?. He could have filmed witnesses who then felt intimidated and may re-think their position.

One thing I am amused / horrified by is the media when they film accused persons and ask them idiotic questions as they go into court -” did you rob those 5 banks?” with the usual response coming form their lawyer “not answering questions etc”.
It’s so close to trying to get a physical reaction and indeed, in the “Tommy Robinson” madness he was claiming various people going into a court case were “Muslim rapists” without really knowing.

I recall a case here in Oz some years ago when a police prosecutor was charged with possession of child abuse material. At sentencing about 12 people gave written references (entirely normal) as to previous good character, charity work done etc, murderers convicted under his actions and so on.
A tabloid newspaper published the images of these referees (all fairly well known people- academics and so on) with a horribly worded article that implied “friends of the pervert”.

The editor was hauled into court and torn strips off for interfering in a normal court process and told by the judge those who in the future who chose to author a reference may feel they can not do it.
And when the reference authors decided to sue, the newspaper caved in immediately and each one was given $40,000 in compo which was bloody good money for one letter !

I see Andy ‘Tick Tock’ Devine is still planning on bringing down the entire corrupt British establishment via video from a village in Greece. He’s a hands-off activist.
Now supporting the “Yellow (or was it Orange) Vests” who rampaged across London bridge bringing traffic to a standstill. All 30 of them as opposed to the estimated 300,000 plus who have demonstrated across France.

Their major achievement seems to have been to block an ambulance with siren blaring that was trying to get through the traffic. Way to win friends and influence people.

Three women dubbed the Witches of Wernberg for being part of an occultist sect are being held in custody in Austria on suspicion of murdering a pensioner, committing arson and defrauding elderly people of at least €1 million.

They were arrested last month after a wealthy woman aged 72 was strangled in the town of Villach. The suspects are named only as Margit T and her alleged disciples Barbara H and Melitta O.

Police said that the three women and their fraud victims, mainly elderly women living alone, were part of an “occult, sect-like circle” led by Margit, a self-professed medium who practices spiritual healing and offers reflexology massage in the village of Wernberg.

Well, with Natalie Stubbs Bradshaw and Marc Armour in tow, they’re more like the Marx Brothers imo. That said, these bumbling buffoons’ hilarious attempts to get hold of people’s personal info’ is more akin to Laurel & Hardy’s efforts to get that piano up the stairs. Minus the charm, of course.

I’ve never been called for jury service (been a witness though in civil cases) and often wondered what it would be like. I’d be very attentive and take copious notes but the notion of getting to the court by 9am horrifies me.
If it was a long case I’d be very happy to be ensconced in a 5 star hotel with room service though.

Pretty sure that sequestering a jury is a US thing. I think in England and Wales jurors are sent home with instructions not to discuss it with anyone which is why the rules on reporting are far stricter.

We also do not know the numbers involved in reaching the not guilty verdicts. Doubt in just one or two jurors would be sufficient in most cases. Also, unlike the US, a juror cannot say post trial why they or any other juror reached their verdict.

There is also another aspect which a work colleague who served on a jury mentioned to me. He’s a hang ’em, flog ’em, throw away the key sort of person when it came to office discussions about crimes and I was well known as the office small “L” liberal. However, he said that he had a very difficult time finding someone guilty because the enormity of the decision and the impact on the accused.

“Eddieisok is an odd case. If I recall correctly when he was called up in front of the judge he responded “I only wanted to film the trollls”.
Firstly how on earth he could figure out who these imaginary trolls are is a mystery but does it not occur to these folk that filming everyone going into a court case is highly risky?. He could have filmed witnesses who then felt intimidated and may re-think their position.”

which is quite ironic, considering that the reason that many of the witnesses were there was because that Sabines release of the info was causing them to be alarmed by the people turning up to harass them… which eddieisnotok promptly showed what they meant by doing exactly that!!!!

Hacking is a crime in the UK. It has serious jail time attached to the offence. Depending on severity, 2, 5, or 10 years jail. It is also much easier to prove than harassment thanks to the helpful requirement on UK ISPs to log all traffic through their servers. Persons inciting others to hack are also liable. These crimes do not rely on interpretation or intent. If you attempt to access someone else’s account without authorisation you are guilty.

Is this a mock-up by MotMF? I checked on Angie’s FB timeline when this went up on Twitter and it wasn’t there. And she rarely takes posts down. Very funny mock-up if it is, to be fair. Worthy of entry into the HR memes folder, I would suggest.

Warning to all: please do not fall for Yannis Emmanouel’s butter-wouldn’t melt act. He’s currently trying to suck up to people on Twitter and elsewhere, particularly to newbies who may not be aware of who he is. He is most likely trying to gather info and dirt on us for Angela and Kris Costa, as he has done in the past. He was the one who told Angela that I am a convicted paedophile and that he had newspaper articles to prove it. I’m not and he didn’t. He’s also part of the group that went after EC and her family and has doxed others from here to the fruitloops and put them and their families in danger. He’s a nasty piece of work – please watch your backs

Had a little look.So, the stuff she has used has scraped people’s names from the published part of the website and provided suggested people or emails of interest to the topic. Sooooo sinister soooo eeeeeevil EC.

This is what happens when you are not blessed with brains and then burn the rest out watching conspiracy crap.

Robert Green, Cat’s hero, contacts police quite often and enters into chummy correspondence. I think Robert Green must be a SIS stooge groomed to make them look like idiots who couldn’t fight their way out of a paper bag.

There is a little hook in the para above to make their tiny minds all wibbly.

Does she own her house? It’s the first question a lawyer asks before suggesting libel proceedings. Irish defamation laws are far stricter than England and Wales. A mother and her son obtained €40,000 in damages after the child’s foster parents posted defamatory comments about the boy’s birth mother on Facebook.

Ah, the irony. Living in Ireland has largely protected her from her unlawful behaviour in respect to harassment and contempt. Living in Ireland could see her in far worse trouble in respect of liability for defamation!

Catching up with Flo. So, Mel Ve, she says she was a refugee from SA? In 1999? So the end of Apartheid was starting to kick in properly. look at her channel. She has always struck me as just a nasty racist bigot mixed up with new age stuff.

There are a few things I don’t understand about Mel Ve’s current take on the situation of Sabine’s conviction.

Why does she think the guilty verdict proves the hoax was a hoax when others here reminded her proof that Ella and Abe dreamt the whole thing up came in Judge Pauffley’s ruling?

How does she imagine her role in promoting and hosting APD ends now when her evidence will be vital in proving APD’s guilt on harassment charges soon?

I think I just caught the last 45 minutes of Flo destroyer’s interview…..the way Mel Ve bristled when Sheva confronted her, in a very non-emotive way btw (I was very impressed by how calm and matter of fact Sheva was)…I mean Mel Ve totally lost the plot such was her anger with Sheva.

Anyway, when EC shared some of the communications exchanged between both her and MV some months ago, I thought then that Mel Ve is quite abnormal…she was peculiar then, she’s peculiar now. It’s clear she’s self-obsessed and it’s very doubtful she’s a proper journalist given the high standard of professionalism required which includes being ethical to the nth degree.

Grobnob made me laugh….he was absolutely correct in what he said.

But I favour Flo’s imperative where he says the point of his hosting these discussions is to bring about resolution even though it seems like an uphill battle.

This is why many of us revolted and joined the Illuminati Resistance as we claim the Official Illuminati are now just a bunch of old Fuddy Duddies and think World Domination is so yesterday. De-constructed Freemasons are always welcome in the resistance and while we haven’t yet formulated our policy on baby pizzas, a press release on this matter and others like mind manipulation will eventually be issued to the Truther Community.
# We are soon to vote on whether King Hoani John Wanoa of Rotarua should be elected as King Of All Evil.

and the hoaxers like APD, cat, neelu etc etc are all love and sunshine….

Mel really shows her bias towards the hoaxing community, and against the antihoaxers like Hoaxtead Research here, even now she tries to spin it as the antihoaxers were just so mean and nasty that it made the hoaxers more believable…

I can’t think of a single time that anyone said here that it would be great if someone fed Mel through a woodchipper, yet that type of comment was made against an antihoaxer…
(in best Southpark voice) Hoaxers did it!
Has anyone here accused Mel of trafficking drugs and children???
(in best Southpark voice) Hoaxers did it!
Has anyone here threatened to cut Mel’s tongue out ??
(in best Southpark voice) Hoaxers did it!
The list of abuse FROM the hoaxers is incredible
Yet we can all go to angies site and get a copy of all the death threats she’s received from us- right?
um right?
She said she had a list- what 2 years ago???
and yet…
(crickets)

If, hypothetically, someone had fallen for the frauds of Abe & Ella, and Kevin Annett, and Sacha Stone, and Webre, and SwissIndo, and QEG HopeGirl, and the OPAL free-energy / freemen caravan, to the point of participating in all these frauds; and if that person sat down for an honest self-appraisal of the predispositions that made her so gullible in matters of fraud; then it would be worth listening to.

It’s the first thing a solicitor will ask in Australia in a potential libel case. They can also get a court to place a (real – Not Neelu style) lien on a defendent’s property to stop them disposing of asserts as defamation cases usually take a couple of years.
They can also request a judge order a defendant (or plaintiff) to pay into the court sums of money if there is a feeling a person will use the court to frustrate the process and run up costs they have no hope of paying.

Most people could be bankrupted by a defamation action by costs alone and of course they won’t get legal aid. Any sensible solicitor will urge a defendant to reach a settlement asap if they believe the libel will be proved.
That’s if the defendant has the money to pay a substantial deposit up front to their solicitor to defend them.

In the Alfred Webre video Mel repeats the Jewish blood libel myth and somehow tries to tie it in with Hampstead because Golder’s Green is nearby. In a later video she says she’s not racist because she has friends of all races and some are apparently Jewish. She doesn’t seem to understand that a lot of racists say this – ‘I have a friend who is black/Asian/Jewish’ – and it means sod all.

If I’d said what she said in the Webre video (which was a ridiculous attack on the Hampstead community and I don’t care if she didn’t name names) I’d be embarrassed but what stuck out most about Mel in After Dark was her arrogance. When they were giving humility out she was at the back of the queue.

It’s not usually “that” expensive to get legal advice. In my case (I was the one being accused) the first consultation was free and there was a £500 retainer. Where it goes wrong is when that legal advice is ignored. With libel and defamation it is up to the person making the claim to prove that they are correct not the plaintiff. APD has not a shred of proof to back up her claims because they are baseless and she would be told to withdraw the remarks, apologise and pay whatever legal fees had been spent by the plaintiff and token damages to avoid it going to court.

If you’re wondering, my legal advice was that my article was not libellous as it quite clearly was covered by the defence of parody and satire, I had made no representation that it was true and the man on the Clapham or any other omnibus would see it as such, so I copied their solicitors letter to the trade press which ran an article ridiculing them, replied in the manner of Arkell v Pressdram and heard no more!

MEDDLESOME EJITS:Tired of sitting on your lazy arse doing bugger all apart from typing frenetic bollocks to other nutters on the Innertube,whilst those whom work their butts off for the “system”seem uncannily favoured and rewarded by the “powers that be” like the Illuminati and other made up shite?
Concerned you risk ending up washed up on the twisted shoreline of bile like Mel Ve,Power-Disney or Andy Devine and having the likes of Flo Destroyer et al expose you for the utterly useless twat you are rapidly becoming?

JOB CENTER+ offer a range of alternative theraputic experiences designed to assist you keep one foot in reality and the police from your door(if its not too late).

I was libeled by the News Of The World decades ago when they mistook me for someone else. It was the easiest money I’ve ever got as they settled within a couple of weeks- enough to buy a new car at the time. My partner in the project who was libeled by association was furious as he got 500 quid less.

She did not take well to the end of white supremacy, and remains an Apartheid apologist.

“Mel Ve is a South African born humanitarian, activist, author and independent media icon, who is descended from the Boers. This documentary tells the story of the people Mel Ve left behind in South Africa, and who are being genocidally slaughtered.

“This controversial documentary film tells the story of the Boers, who they were, and why they were so important in South Africa’s history. We explore the events that led to the Anglo Boer wars, in which the Boers fought for their freedom from the forces of Imperialism.

“Mel Ve controversially explores the true facts pertaining to APARTHEID, explaining some of the fallacies and lies that the world was fed in order to brainwash them into supporting the eventual presidency of Nelson Mandela, a known communist, terrorist and murderer.”

Odd, isn’t it, the hit rate in finding yet another racist behind those promoting the hoax has to be in a range between 100-100%! It’s almost as if they spend their entire lives seething and fulminating about others.

I find Mel Ve’s brain vomitings strangely compelling, so effusive, so little self awareness. She didn’t know any black South Africans until she was an adult, she met some black people in Uni and was amazed at how happy they were despite their poverty, she can tell you all about freedom movements in SA and black people’s motivations, hopes and dreams from the time before she was born. Apartheid was a bit of cruelty and rudeness. THIS IS IT. Not the police state and violent suppression I heard about I suppose. A regime so awful that the word Apartheid has skipped the country’s boundaries to be recycled when states are accused of brutally segregating and oppressing people.

Depends what the sentence is,,, Hope I’m not disappointed but it is clear that the only thing that stopped her in her tracks was being incarcerated. Given her lack of remorse and empathy, the conduct of her supporters ignoring reporting restrictions, and given she has abused children to such a degree their names will be on the internet for life, I truly hope the judge sends out a warning to all the imbeciles out there that if you engage with this sort of crime, you can expect to spend a long time behind bars.